If you're a financial freak try online forex, forex online has never been easier; experience forex trading at the leading forex broker offering forex managed accounts offering you the opportunity to trade forex online with state of the art real trading conditions.

Webmaster or site owner? Join the leading forex affiliate program and start earning from your advertising space.

“Petraeus agrees to testify on Libya before congressional committees”

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.

Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.

The resignation has since expanded into a sprawling scandal that now includes allegations that Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, exchanged “inappropriate” and sexually charged emails with Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite linked to the Petraeus case. The rapid developments in the case have all but obscured what until last week was an intense debate on Capitol Hill and beyond over the Benghazi terror attack.

– Gee. What a strange and astounding coincidence! Kinda makes a dead buggered ambassador, an equally dead diplomatic worker, and two snuffed SEALs cold news, doesn’t it? Because it’s sex, and we live in Reality TV nation, where our “investigative journalists” have all become Entertainment Tonight reporters.

The logistics of Petraeus’ appearance are still being worked out. But a source close to Petraeus said the former four-star general has contacted the CIA, as well as committees in both the House and Senate, to offer his testimony as the former CIA director.

Fox News has learned he is expected to speak off-site to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday about his Libya report.
The House side is still being worked out.

[…]

While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair — and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.

Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed “wedded” to the administration’s narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus’ statements — which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence — were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.

King questioned whether the investigation “consciously or subconsciously” affected his statements to Congress.

That last being code for was Petraeus being blackmailed, or did he fear being blackmailed?

As with the Benghazi attacks proper, we’re being asked now — with the help of a compliant, progressive press that merely parrots the administration party line (fight the Power!) — to believe that the President or his top staff knew nothing whatever about a potentially compromised CIA head until just after the election. That is, that the FBI, which knew about the affair many many months back, didn’t share that information with the Imperial President or anyone close to him.

This, all of it, the entirety of our political spectacle, is a mirage. A fraud. A fantastical and oftentimes surreal puppet show.

And as we watch it, we’re being asked to bracket reason, logic, experience, and evidence, all things that, when applied to this administration’s very existence reveal it as but a series of interconnected disasters (from our perspective; from the perspective of the far left things are going swimmingly!) that each help, in their own ways, to undermine our constitutional republic, the rule of law, the stability of our economy and currency, and the liberty of the individual — the narrative for which is clothed in the phony populism of “fairness” and “social justice” and “tolerance”.

We have a leftist Administration and a leftist Senate. We have a bureaucracy overrun with leftist operatives posing as civil servants. We have a leftist Justice Department. We have a leftist press running point and providing rhetorical cover for a leftist campaign to overthrow our constitutional system. To all of these people, the ends justify the means. That is the essence of the “anti-foundationalism” preached by leftist academics who daily work to delegitimate the Enlightenment paradigm under which our system of governance was born and through which it is not only justified but required as a way to protect individual liberty against the persistent encroachment of tyranny.

And here, the entire apparatus has swung into cover-up and distract mode in order to protect a President who allowed Americans to die so that he won’t lose a “mandate” to finish remaking the United States into a soft socialist / liberal fascist country.

Now, I realize we’re supposed to be talking about giving Latinos amnesty to show we care about their basic human dignity (and what says “we care!” more than granting them a life of dependency financed through government plunder); and that we’re supposed to mend our message so that we aren’t the party of old white people and the rich — the best ways being to agree to tax the millionaire bastards who can afford to pay their fair share, and to court any number of different identity groups through “outreach” that includes promises that we, too, want to protect you vagina, or that we, too, really really like education and teachers.

But then, I’m not interested in what “we’re” supposed to be talking about. Because to do so would make me a coward and a scapegoating asshole, too. And while I may be many things, those are not two of them, and they never will be.

Instead, so long as this site stays live, I’ll be talking about reclaiming our constitutional birthrights. About fighting tyranny, whether it comes in the jackboots of a leftist administrative state or little fuzzy bunny slippers looking out for my kids’ dietary needs.

I don’t do polls. And I don’t stick my finger in the wind in order to appease the general mood of what would otherwise be my target audience. And frankly, what we’re seeing right now from many Republicans, a full-on retreat that I believe in their hearts many of them actually desired, is embarrassing to watch.

This country is, in my honest opinion — and said without an ounce of intended drama — done. Gone. But that doesn’t mean I have to stop fighting.

I take solace in the fact that many of us are left who won’t let the conclusion of this coup come easily.

Comments (254)

After the election, I seriously had to take a day off and lay in bed. I thought to myself, I’m done with politics. I’m done voting.

The thing that happened is that I realized I no longer have an affinity for this country. The majority of the people DO want this. There is no more mistaking it or hiding from it or thinking they just needed more time to see it. They see where we are headed and are eager.

So yes, I agree. It is over. To paraphrase Gibbon, the freedom the citizens of America want most is the freedom from responsibility. It has often been said by men smarter than me that democracy is an untenable form of government and clearly, it has been proven so. Constitutional Republics can work only if democracy never gains the power to change the constitution.

With every increase of the franchise, so increased the majority’s ability to remove the rights they deemed offensive and now we have just a mob that thinks that inner-city homeless should decide tax rates as surely as the captains of industry.

So, we are doomed. Now, I spend most of my time thinking about what haven I’ll run to when it gets too bad.

The Allen allegations appear to be complete bunk. The majority of the emails were between Kelley and Allen’s wife, with Allen cc’d on them. 20,000 pages includes scads of redundancy due to entire conversations being reproduced with every response. There seem to be a whole lot of nothing there but socialites socializing.

My two cents: the bread and circuses currently being offered won’t distract many people other than Democrats and the MSM. Which, the Venn Diagram of those two sets has one almost completely engulfing the other.

you got your “savior”. i want a person who understands the constitution not an ivy league knucklehead. the constitution 5 pages, obamacare 45,000 pages and counting(the regs you effin fat chrischristie bastard)

Thanks for slumming it. We’re always a little nervous when masterminds aren’t around telling us how to behave and what to think and do.

Shit, I almost reached for a 20 oz. Coke. Then I saw your comment and remembered my place.

Now that you’ve done your duty — teaching us, out of concern for our continued well-being — please do head back to that wittier blog, where the wonders of Utopia are extolled in delightfully droll ways, pumped through with pitch perfect irony and finished off with just the right pop-cultural and academic references.

but really, “tyranny”? what kind of point of reference is that? how can you be effective when you have a fictional villain? Reference actual actions, and actual policy, and specific public statements.

Go through the archives and find the specific references yourself. It’s not like they haven’t been written about and pointed to over and over and over again. Hell, there’s some noted even in some of today’s posts.

I know it feels right now like everybody is here to serve you, but that’s really not the case.

4 years of high unemployment with no hope of improvement, record numbers on food stamps, crushing national debt, a crumbling infrastructure, energy production being strangled, the middle east in crisis, and the fucking rap is the same.

No. But we prefer not to be bored by people who think they’re being provocative when in fact all they are doing is wasting our time.

You’re a liberal fascist, “moops”. Embrace it. Defend it as the path you chose to take. No need to be coy. We know who and what you are, and we know why it is you’re here. But this isn’t 2007 anymore, so nobody really much feels like answering the demands of a disingenuous concern troll pretending interest in conservative or classically liberal ideas.

Obama the Tyrant… just isn’t going to gain much traction. I’m sorry. There are a dozen negative adjectives I could toss up that are more believable.

It cheapens the term historically. You are not living in a time of historic tyranny. By no objective measure of tyranny can you observe your own surroundings and use that terminology, and be considered lucid.

The President uses arbitrary rules for executing US citizens abroad. That might count, but then you are on the same page as the Guardian, and that is not acceptable here.

Have heart LBascom, Your blogmaster will remain someone I never want to ever meet in person. It took a few hours to get to that conclusion. I’m just enjoying the strange efforts it is taking to not actually engage with me.

But I have been dismissed in almost the exact same way by Digby and her legions. So, welcome to the club!

Likely that’s because you’re such a free-thinking, independent-minded heterodox whose willingness to challenge all assumptions drives hardened partisans on “both sides” to distraction.

— Is what I bet you tell yourself.

but I’m glad you took the time to mistake me for a sockpuppet. It is confirms some theories about you that I’ve been forming after combing through your material.

Well, I apologize if I mistook your for the other “moops,” but you have to admit, it isn’t a particularly common name.

As for the “theories” about me my conclusion “confirms” in your mind — theories formed by what I’m sure were a very rigorous combing through of my material — I honestly don’t care and am not the least bit curious.

On the other hand, I’m not coy myself, so let me just note that my theory about why people like you take the time to sign up for websites in order to comment in a way that is intended to draw fire is that you’re sad and lonely creatures who think more highly of themselves than do those who have yet to recognize your subtle genius.

I do not see myself as a mealy mouthed centrist pointless fop. That is yet another ad hominem attack.

I didn’t call you a centrist. I called you a wannabe heterodox and a liberal fascist. Those are two very specific labels.

And calling out ad hominem attacks might be something useful if we were engaged in a debate of some sort. But we aren’t. I’m not interested in anything you have to say, and so I’m merely spending my time describing what you appear to me to be.

You’re simply going to have to accept that I find you tedious. Your taunts are boring and stale, much like your ideology. I suspect you’ll find no real pleasure here.

Your commentators are of a poor caliber, and you would do well to look much further afield for validation.

They do not cite external references. They do not create fully formed explications of their thoughts. There is no discussion, no honing of your arguments and truths. You have a poor collection of fellow travelers. I would sit and consider the fact that the avid readers of your material are perhaps not the kind of people that make changes in this world.

No blow managed to land. This is not the forum of heroes you would imagine. I will hang around, at your leave of course. If you truly want to build a new order of thought and movement, you probably need something different here at PW.

It stings, it does. Like when you accidentally eat batteries thinking they’re also for human power or when you’re asked to read a passel of book words in class and you’re so ashamed your eyes take to rainin’.

I hesitate to fess up, bh, but one time in the year of Our Lord 1983 I went to see Asia in concert and was dang near broke-hearted to the point of affliction when it turned out not one of thems that were up on stage had slanty little eyes like the tiny spin-kickin’ folk in all them Saturday morning kung-fu movies.

Oh, lookit. I just learned me a something. Iffin you put four question marks after a question, it makes the question lots more questiony. That’s one I’m going to have to store in my mental cupboard, ‘case I ever really really need to find me a bathroom. I ain’t too proud to say that at least once that I can remember I soaked my britches for lack of the proper number of question marks.

Shoot, this is almost like a tale my grand-cousin told me about how you can build a bridge under the bridge and then you can charge your own damn toll to those above your bridge but under the normal folk bridge!

We shall go on to the end, we shall mock them fight in France, we shall mock them fight on the seas and oceans, we shall mock them fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mock them fight on the beaches, we shall mock them fight on the landing grounds, we shall mock them fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall mock them fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

I really do think that this is better though. MM and LGF had all sorts of filtering in place to make things so homogeneous. and Digby and BalloonJuice treat me pretty much the same when I spend a week there.

Moops has declared, in his virginal visit, that nobody disagrees here. He bases that conclusion on the separate fact that no one seems to care much about what he says.

Science!

Anyway, wife left on a business trip tonight, and I had a three-hour wrestling practice I coached this evening. So now’s the time, both boys having been cleaned and tucked in their beds, for me to relax and watch my stories.

This is my first time POSTING. I have stopped by often to see the convergence of emotion and interpretation.

I’m sorry Jeff. It plays out every day. Your archives are pretty clear. argument doesn’t happen. Even legitimate contrary research. You are the only active person here. The rest just reflect back to you your own prejudices, by self-selection.

Our system is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.

Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship…….

(By the way, I selected that one because the argument plays out over 500 comments or so. Which is what I used to get around here before a few trolls writing under multiple names, calling me kike, taking shots at my family, that sort of thing, convinced me the time for discussion was pretty much over and I instituted a registration policy. So if you find this place a bit too homogeneous for your liking, you can blame your fellow progressives. Incidentally, my archives being “pretty clear” and whatnot, you might want to go back and search out the guest posts from people like Jeralyn Merritt or nishi or the lying crapweasel, Scott Erik Kaufman. Whom I allowed to post here. Back when I actually cared what they had to say.)

“moops says November 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I’ll give Erickson more credit than this group of contributors or the host. Jeff is at least more witty, if a bit offensive. Take it up and defend yourselves in your own voices.”

Ooh! Credit giving! What else do you have in your ACME can o’ tiresome rabble pokin’ sophomore techniques ? Any more a’them straw men ? I just love seein’ a circus geek puttin’ on his straw man knockin’ down show.

I once seen a fancy circus man knock down twenty straw men with his big toe like a bunch of big…strawish….man-like….dominos! My dog barked at him and everything. Then I had to go back inside muh liquor shack, ’cause it started a’rainin’

” palaeomerus : If you just can’t help yourself in your affected simpleton prose, then just stop. I’ve asked several times now to speak in your own voice. I’m drawing close to a conclusion.”

Sorry stranger, I don’t find your askin’ to be particularly authoritative, nor do I see the value in yer lame little regimen o’ canned fark taunts a’ yesteryear. In fact I’m startin’ to see you as a dim and thin skinned little feller who can’t read, reason, argue, well enough to provoke more than mockery and a bit o’ bored scorn.

Seems to me moops puts himself in his proper place without needing any help at all. He should be proud (not of being a dullard of course, but of finding his own level). Ah, but we can all see he’s already taken that simple lesson on board.

Strange though: he does have an odd habit of confusing his despotism as characteristic of Americans, at least insofar as he makes the claim to being an American — which we can take at face value, there having grown so many of his sort round about of late. Yet there’s hardly anything distinctive about that.

I has watched me a midget come along and topple his-self and drunk me half a royal crown in the process. Nope. I tell a lie. My libation t’was a Pepsi. The royal crown is still in the fridge right next to the Red Diamond brand iced tea.

“I would put that a decent simulacra from MIT would dance circles in this forum. Grant yourselves a dose of humility in that regard.”

‘I would put’ that you type out badly constructed crap the way that a text generating script loaded with awkward phrases would. You portray this crap as if it were the work of Oscar Wilde at his very best and award yourself undeserved rhetorical points for it. Then, having badly said virtually nothing, you attempt a cheap pose of intellectual dominance which quickly collapses under the weight of its utter incompetence.

those are severe designations. To be a patriot and use such terms requires a very high standard of proof. So far all I’ve seen is paranoia.

I have seen second amendment advocates make a thunderous noise, but have nothing to point to. I have seen economic libertarians cry havoc, yet nothing has happened in DC to indicate we have changed anything.

“I have seen second amendment advocates make a thunderous noise, but have nothing to point to. I have seen economic libertarians cry havoc, yet nothing has happened in DC to indicate we have changed anything.”

I have seen nothing resembling an actual argument or a criticism of anything yet.

Sorry, this is ridiculous. Attack Obama for what he actually does, not your paranoia-fed fears of what a liberal might really do. The first black President spends most of his time threading the needle between the centrist Clinton and the right-wing Reagan. The attacks on him from the left are more substantive than anything I’ve heard here.

The fringe loco Greenwald has better material that Jeff has.

If you want to take this guy down, you have to attack the real man, not this made up Tyrant. He is lazy about civil liberties and due process. For a civil right lawyer that is far more damaging than the stuff from his fantasy socialist dreams.

I did? Who is crapweasel? What are you talking about? As an example of what?

I linked to a post the comments to which were filled with disagreement. This directly rebutted your suggestion that disagreement doesn’t occur here. The post had to do with a Letterman monologue joke. I still don’t know what you’re referring to with “crapweasel.” Perhaps you could do some citing to make it clear.

As for specific examples of tyranny, you can start with extra-constitutional imperial edicts, move on to things like “We can’t wait” to circumvent separation of powers, slide over to an overt and intentional refusal to follow the appointments clause, and then saunter into “little” things, like using executive power to overrule bankruptcy law, screwing over share holders in order to reward union cronies, to driving into law nationalization of health care against the wishes of the electorate, effectively redefining the relationship of the citizen to the state and creating a rationing system — all while stealing money out of Medicare. Frankly, the list is so long you’d have to go back through four years worth of posts to find all the examples cited here.

But beyond that, I deal a lot with the structural and linguistic mechanisms that reinforce and drive tyranny. There are entire sections of my “greatest hits” dedicated to such discussions, but most recently, and off the top of my head, we have an example of an attempt to redefine the First Amendment to exclude “hate speech,” which requires as a matter of necessary fact someone to determine what exactly comes to constitute such speech. And that would be the progressives in power, conveniently enough — in a move that would turn fundamental natural right, according to the BOR in the Constitution, into one that is granted by government.

The fact is, the evidence of tyranny is so obvious that it is ridiculous to answer disingenuous queries about the specific instances of such an ideological leaning. Look around. The only reason you don’t see it is because you are part of it.

“moops says November 15, 2012 at 12:15 am
Recess appointments? that is now “Tyranny?”
try harder.”

No, you left out the important part. “while the senate is in session”.

You try harder, by explaining how making a recess appointment when conditions for a recess appointment authority for the president have not been met is not an example of a form of tyranny. How does it fail the test? Is there now to a ‘tyrrany but not ‘tyranny tyranny’ category? Is there a magnitude test where little tyranny is okay since it is not big tyranny?

You seem to think that the only test is whether or not you are nervous. You want to introduce gibberish about ‘wealthy privilege’.

Bullshit.

Obama did a recess appointment for a cabinet post while the senate was still in session instead of waiting until they were not in session. He is not allowed to do that, but he exceeded his authority and did it anyway.

Yes. How dare a dictionary try to lay out a definition? Tyranny is what moops says it is, only he won’t say. He’ll just say that you haven’t provided evidence that meets his definition. Which remains unstated.

“Sorry, this is ridiculous. Attack Obama for what he actually does, not your paranoia-fed fears of what a liberal might really do.”

It’s ridiculous because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. You don’t understand tyranny. You don’t understand what the limits on the office of the presidency are and how they have been exceeded. You just move the tyranny goal posts to where ever you are comfortable with them and smugly insist that there is no tyranny because you don’t want to call it that. You like your tyranny to have something to do with ‘wealthy privilege’ which you just made up. But the secret to the conversation is that no one gives a damn about ‘moops tyranny meter’. Nobody is going to let moops just unilaterally tilt all the terms his way and make them stick that way.

moops prattling on about ‘wealthy privilege’ being a vital component for tyranny and ignoring examples of actual tyranny carries no weight. The dictionary does cut it. moops cannot support his arguments and criticisms merely by have an incompetent understanding of the words he wishes to quibble over.

—–
Well, moops has failed his audition spectacularly and is just basically gurgling at us.

I’m going to bed, and he can spend the rest of the night ranting ineffectually to the oblong space demons of eastern hubastank about the proper price of an ur-pound of chunky style sugar free frenetic somnambulance in for all I care.

If you want to have an impact beyond your simpleton commentators, you are going to have to improve your methods and your scholarship. I’m sorry Jeff, this group that validates you is the lowest internet denizen. I think you are clever, and eager, and might really want to discover good governance, but you have taken up with a crowd that reinforces your worst instincts.

A blog is not useful if all it does is feed a swarm of validation of prejudices. Alex as an avatar is symptomatic of a failure to grasp the power of this medium. This was all before Kubrick’s time , but Alex is a victim in these narratives. I’m not sure why you don’t understand this. Perhaps the books would make things clearer. I don’t know why you identify with the character.

and no, none of your commentators has landed a meaningful blow on my character or arguments. You cited nothing meaningful to justify the groaning plea to fear the Tyrant. No. You are alone with your colleagues in this delusion. Where do you go with that? probably walking it back. You never Go Galt on us plebes, despite our fondest wish that you would try it.

So, blogging is where it’s at. what do you want to achieve from blogging? more validation from the few that can’t match you?

Listen: you don’t impress me. Not with lectures about the purpose of a blog that isn’t yours to decide the purpose of, nor with your persistent concern trolling.

Most of my commentators are extremely well-read and quite bright. What is confusing you is that you haven’t yet grasped that to them — and me — you are nothing more than a type, an iteration, a familiar object rendered in pixels we’ve all of us here dealt with time and again over the years. The arguments are the same; the tone is the same; the faux bemusement is the same; the insistence that we refuse to answer questions we’ve already answered: same. You receive little in the way of substance back from us because everyone here knows from your presentation that you’re punching well above your weight. You are worth our time solely as a plaything, to be mocked, ridiculed, belittled. We don’t care what you think, because we know what you think is wrong.

As for why Alex is my avatar, well, that should be perfectly clear from my archives. Which you claim to have combed when you were forming your judgment of me. Your flailing attempts to suggest some sort of hybrid Lacanian/Bakhtinian takeaway from my avatar is, frankly, embarrassing. In fact, all I got out of it was this: “You may have seen the movie, but I read the Burgess novel!”

You are nothing more than a constructed set of intellectual markers hoping that the contours you suggestively create will intimate a depth to the interior that just isn’t there. I see through you. And I’m bored by what you have to offer.

Guess in your haste to pigeonhole me you missed some stuff about who I really am and what I really believe. Pity, that.

Yes. How dare a dictionary try to lay out a definition? Tyranny is what moops says it is, only he won’t say. He’ll just say that you haven’t provided evidence that meets his definition. Which remains unstated.

Ah, like Goldilocks. Though something tells me no definition will be “juuuuuuust riiiiiiiight” to moops.

This is not the activities of the “bored”. The hipster detachment that you would prefer.

I didn’t pigeonhole you. In fact, I granted a wide dominion of you capabilities. What I disparaged was your company and your validation.

I don’t need to imagine the contours. You are not subtle, or sublime. Do you think you are? that would be a shock. You are not a complex creature to be revealed in several acts. You make a point of not being that sort of character. If you are a twisted Freudian act then you owe your commentators an apology. I can take you as you boast and leave your analysis to your followers. They have to justify their devotion.

What you truly believe is the darkest material. It comes out in the moments of your passion. That is also exposed for a wide audience.

the issue is, are you eager to have more meaningful disagreement and discussion, or can you only settle for obsequious fellow travelers ?

you haven’t actually made the case for “concern trolling.” I don’t pretend to hold your prejudices and assault you from the flank. I refute you from the front, without the shield of your comaraderie. I don’t claim any assumed protections or privilege.

Actually, it is the activity of the bored — of someone waiting around for his wife to arrive in Portland and call him from her hotel. That’s now been done.

As for contours, I was speaking of yours, not mine. By your misunderstanding, you did me the service of describing yourself as I see you, however, even as you resolved to project all of your character tells onto me.

I don’t think of myself in terms of the subtle or the sublime. And I don’t write what I write for validation, as anyone who pays attention to the right side of the blogosphere would surely tell you. The fact that you think in such terms is rather bizarre.

As for my “followers,” they need not justify anything to me or to you. Which has been the point all along. We engage in plenty of meaningful discussion and disagreement here. We just don’t care what fascists think. Those days have passed.

Meaning, we don’t engage you because there’s nothing of interest to engage with. Sorry. But it is what it is, because you are what you are.

Yes, Patrick: he enters with a smug sense of superiority and leaves validated that he was right to consider us loathsome monsters incapable of deep thought because we refused to acknowledge that he’d presented any.

As I wrote before, he’s a dime a dozen. Or, to use his parlance, he’s neither subtle nor sublime.

‘night all. Be here bright and early tomorrow, though, so I can get some of that sweet sweet validation.

As for my “followers,” they need not justify anything to me or to you. Which has been the point all along. We engage in plenty of meaningful discussion and disagreement here. We just don’t care what fascists think. Those days have passed.

…it’s when they start trying the “followers” line that has me fighting an urge to make quotes from either ‘Life of Brian’ or ‘The Omen’ though I’ve only seen a few clips from the latter so it probably won’t work as well.

OT: I think I am going with a scope-mounted .223/5.56 bolt-action Savage. It runs around $350, and is decently accurate, so it should be a good starter piece for me. It’s got 6-10x the energy that a .22LR has, so I could hunt with it in a pinch, as far as I can see.

We’ll probably do pistols next. I am seriously thinking .357 for her, loaded with .38 special most of the time. That’s a pretty flexible piece. We may go with two of those, if I develop a sudden allergy to automatics.

We’re not thinking volume of fire, at this point. More like: having some useful weapons at hand.

I have a gun review for the Savage 93 FV posted TTAG. Might want to consider 22 WMR. Cost about $130 for 500 rounds of ammunition, doesn’t really kick and is very accurate. (I can drive a nail with mine at 100 yards)

Slart, 5.56 doesn’t show up on the Savage web site. More than likely, Woodbury is using 5.56 and .223 interchangeably. Just as likely, Savage will tell you they do not recommend firing 5.56 out of a .223.

She hasn’t fired a magnum, but I was thinking she’d be shooting .38 special out of it, while I might tend to shoot .357 magnum out of the same gun.

And I just had a discussion with a guy at the gun range who has semi-convinced me to go to .22LR after all. He asked me what I am hunting and for right now, the answer is nothing. But it might not always be.

For now: target practice. But I’d like something I can also hunt with, so I am torn between getting a .22LR now and getting some practice in, followed by a larger caliber later, and just splitting the difference now.

Likely I’ll be going .22LR now sans scope, adding a scope later (because I think I might suck at shooting through open sights at ranges further than e.g. 20 yards), and add another gun later, in a larger caliber like .30-06, .30-30 or .308.

Just to more thoroughly answer: I can see a .22LR being used for: target practice, idle plinking, small-game hunting, pest/predator control, and as a useful but not very scary-looking home defense. I wouldn’t want to HAVE to rely on it, but if you can shoot an invader in the right place with it they’re going down. Eventually.

For immediate use, it’d be target-shooting practice. Not sure how useful it’d be come the zombie apocalypse. What if you scored a headshot and not enough of the brain was damaged?

Slart, as long as you’re not thinking that someday you might like to own an AK/AR/M4-gery type rifle, it probably doesn’t matter if you get a .22lr or something chambered for a larger caliber now and something else at a later time.

On the other hand, if you want something that might fall subject to a renewed “assault” weapons ban, either because you want it just to have it, or you want to have it just in case you ever need it, I would get that first, even if it’s a larger initial investment for something that you’re not even sure you want.

The thing about AR clones and Garand-type semi-autos, and even former commie-block imports? They won’t lose value.

Login/Register

Advertisements

DHgate.com is the leading B2B online trading marketplace for china wholesale products, you can buy high quality china wholesale apparel, electronics, security cameras and other wholesale products on DHgate.com.